This is about 5 miles south of Oxnard, California, looking out into the Pacific Ocean. I shot this in January and happened upon it today.
Nikon D750, Sigma 24mm ART lens, and my sturdy Manfrotto tripod.
15 seconds @ f13.
10 Likes
@paperdigits Mica, shooting a 24mm lens on a FF camera @ f13 is almost a sacrilege…
1 Like
@heckflosse educate me, please!
Well. It’s beyond difraction limit.
1 Like
@heckflosse I wanted to blur the water, so I stopped down to get to a shutter speed I liked. Though now I own a 10-stop ND filter, so I could open up a bit.
Ah, ok 
I like it. Very nice outcome. The blurred water has an almost fog look to it.
1 Like
Next time you could try to take many (>10) shots at normal shutter speed, and average them in PP. The more shots you have, the closeryou will get to a long exposure…
By the way, very nice picture!!!
1 Like
Nice photo and editing @paperdigits!
Focal length shouldn’t influence diffraction.
D750 has 24MP, F11 is still below diffraction limit, f13 might be just above.
D750 also has an optical low-pass-filter.
Furthermore when you look at MTF charts you shouldn’t stop down more than f5.6-f8 as resolution already drops.
So I don’t think that you would see much (if any) difference between f13, f11 or f8 in this case. Hence no sacrilege 
No one’s mentioned depth of field…
Looks like rocks are from about 2-10 meters, Clouds and water are blurry due to long exposure. Should not need F13 IMO.
It wasn’t about needing f13 or depth of field, it was about wanting a longer exposure, in this case 15 seconds to blur that water. F13 allowed me to get a 15 second exposure, so that is why I choose f13. I was already at ISO 100, and wasn’t going lower.
2 Likes
Hard to tell, but was the water motion in swells, or was there any wave breaking?
Yes, with you on the exposure time, 'specially if swells…
Swells mostly, of there was breaking, they were breaking close to land. In find the ocean needs a longer exposure for that smoothish look.
